On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to censure Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for his theatrical protest during President Trump’s congressional address. What was notable about the vote was that it was not strictly along party lines; 10 Democrats supported censure. What would motivate so many of Green’s Democratic colleagues to buck the rest of their party and vote in favor of the measure?

It is important to understand both what censure is and what it has become. The House has its own internal rules for disciplining its members. The most serious form of punishment is expulsion, which was initially used to remove supporters of the Confederacy. It was last employed only two years ago to remove Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) after his indictments on charges ranging from wire fraud to identity theft.

While initially used interchangeably with censure, a reprimand is now the mildest form of rebuke from the House. Those that have received reprimands include Rep. Austin Murphy (D-Pa.), for having another person vote on his behalf, and Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), for providing inaccurate information to the Ethics Committee.

A censure is between expulsion and a reprimand. Following the vote, the sanctioned member must stand in the well of the House while the censure resolution is read out loud. Censure was once rare. During the 20th century, only five House members were censured, for cases such as mail fraud and sexual misconduct. However, five representatives have now been censured since 2021, with three of those cases coming in a seven-month span.

Why has there been an increase? One reason may be a change in the types of incidents that are now being censured. It is now increasingly used for acts that are more related to a member’s judgment than matters of legality. For example, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was censured for alleging connections between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, while Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) was censured over her critical comments about Israel.

This change may help explain why those Democrats supported Thursday’s vote. As the criteria for censure has become lower, it may also have become more partisan. Support for or against censure may be driven by political considerations as opposed to institutional integrity.

Members of Congress are often viewed by political scientists as “single-minded seekers of reelection,” which may be a useful framework for understanding what is happening. Several of the Democrats who voted in support of censure represent districts that supported Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris, including Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). Others had close contests of their own, such as Rep. Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), who narrowly defeated incumbent Anthony D’Esposito in November. If censure becomes a partisan tool, then those in more toss-up districts may want to signal their independence to their constituents by voting against it.

Moving forward, some Republicans are suggesting that Green should also be removed from his positions on committees. As partisanship and polarization continue to ratchet upwards, it is possible that such a maneuver may also become a political tool in the future.

Will such measures make it more difficult for the House to govern, or will these actions be “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?” Time will tell if this Shakespearean tale will be more of a tragedy, a comedy or a farce.

Michael E. Bednarczuk, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Political Science at Austin Peay State University. He studies political behavior and public service.